Talk:Taurus: Difference between revisions
imported>Larry Sanger No edit summary |
imported>Patrice Gross No edit summary |
||
| Line 15: | Line 15: | ||
I'd make it look like [[Biology/Related Articles]]--use the {{tl|r}} (for "related") templates. --[[User:Larry Sanger|Larry Sanger]] 11:31, 14 December 2007 (CST) | I'd make it look like [[Biology/Related Articles]]--use the {{tl|r}} (for "related") templates. --[[User:Larry Sanger|Larry Sanger]] 11:31, 14 December 2007 (CST) | ||
:I agree that Wikipedia articles abuse of templates of all kinds, so much that sometimes they hide the poor quality of the encyclopedic content. | |||
:However, I think that navigational templates are very handy when you can keep them on your screen, and easily review all the listed articles. That's the case when a navigational template is set on top of the page (these templates are usually narrow and located on the left side of the page), or when an article is very short (like many draft articles). | |||
:Ideally, the navigational template would be in a separate window, always on top of the other windows. | |||
:As this solution is not implemented, I suggest to keep an unique navigational template in draft articles, in order to easy the harmonization between articles belonging to a consistent set. | |||
:When an article is long enough, the access to the 'Related articles' page is as fast than the scrolling of the article page. So, supposing that the navigational template is set on top of the 'Related articles' page, it becomes useless to keep it on the bottom of an article page. --[[User:Patrice Gross|Patrice Gross]] 10:01, 15 December 2007 (CST) | |||
Revision as of 10:01, 15 December 2007
We really need to discuss the rules/guidelines for adding such navigational templates as this:
| 88 Official Constellations by IAU |
|
Andromeda • Antlia • Apus • Aquarius • Aquila • Ara • Aries • Auriga • Boötes • Caelum • Camelopardalis • Cancer • Canes Venatici • Canis Major • Canis Minor • Capricornus • Carina • Cassiopeia • Centaurus • Cepheus • Cetus • Chamaeleon • Circinus • Columba • Coma Berenices • Corona Australis • Corona Borealis • Corvus • Crater • Crux • Cygnus • Delphinus • Dorado • Draco • Equuleus • Eridanus • Fornax • Gemini • Grus • Hercules • Horologium • Hydra • Hydrus • Indus • Lacerta • Leo • Leo Minor • Lepus • Libra • Lupus • Lynx • Lyra • Mensa • Microscopium • Monoceros • Musca • Norma • Octans • Ophiuchus • Orion • Pavo • Pegasus • Perseus • Phoenix • Pictor • Pisces • Piscis Austrinus • Puppis • Pyxis • Reticulum • Sagitta • Sagittarius • Scorpius • Sculptor • Scutum • Serpens • Sextans • Taurus • Telescopium • Triangulum • Triangulum Australe • Tucana • Ursa Major • Ursa Minor • Vela • Virgo • Volans • Vulpecula |
Wikipedia has way too many of them, and that is what subpages--in this case, Related Articles pages--are for. I do think we should discuss this, but my first take is that we should probably move all such lists of links onto Related Articles pages. I think that if you consider it carefully, you'll see that this the long-term most sensible way forward.
Note that there's no reason that we can't use templates on related articles pages. But the nice thing about putting such navigational links on the related articles pages is that you can make the type larger, and add more "definition"-type information (e.g., where the constellation is located, what season it appears highest in, etc.). See CZ:Definitions too.
I think the main thing that bothers me about navigational templates is that they are an attempt to solve the categorization problem--but it is preferable to stick to just one solution, and ours is, indeed, Related Articles pages. --Larry Sanger 10:57, 14 December 2007 (CST)
- Yes, i agree. I think is more organized put all the links in Related Articles too. But therefore we must change the formatation of the tamplates - specifically, on this template (larger type, etc.). What do you suggest? L'Astorina 11:09, 14 December 2007 (CST)
I'd make it look like Biology/Related Articles--use the {{r}} (for "related") templates. --Larry Sanger 11:31, 14 December 2007 (CST)
- I agree that Wikipedia articles abuse of templates of all kinds, so much that sometimes they hide the poor quality of the encyclopedic content.
- However, I think that navigational templates are very handy when you can keep them on your screen, and easily review all the listed articles. That's the case when a navigational template is set on top of the page (these templates are usually narrow and located on the left side of the page), or when an article is very short (like many draft articles).
- Ideally, the navigational template would be in a separate window, always on top of the other windows.
- As this solution is not implemented, I suggest to keep an unique navigational template in draft articles, in order to easy the harmonization between articles belonging to a consistent set.
- When an article is long enough, the access to the 'Related articles' page is as fast than the scrolling of the article page. So, supposing that the navigational template is set on top of the 'Related articles' page, it becomes useless to keep it on the bottom of an article page. --Patrice Gross 10:01, 15 December 2007 (CST)